runtime vs build dependencies in making metapackages?

[Anders F Björklund]

  Ryan Schmidt:

>> Now I know, or think I know, that the correct way to do this is to  
>> do "port -f destroot" for each dependency, and then "port mdmg  
>> solfege".  But on which list do I use "port -f destroot", the 86  
>> member list or the 51?  Is it that, in making a metapackage, I  
>> only need to worry about runtime dependencies, because build  
>> dependencies will already be included in the solfege binary?  And  
>> apparently I've got 51 runtime dependencies, and the rest are  
>> build deps?  That would all make sense to me, but I'm just  
>> speculating.
>
> I haven't used "port mdmg" myself so I can't advise you  
> specifically for that.
>
> I can explain that a port's build dependencies are only needed to  
> build the software, not to run it. Therefore, there's no reason to  
> include build dependencies into the binary mdmg package.

And of course one shouldn't _need_ to do port -f destroot in the  
first place either, it's just a workaround to the portautoclean  
default and Ticket #10881...

The trick is to disable "autoclean" before it empties all of the  
ports destroot, otherwise you need to rebuild everything unless you  
also enabled "archivemode".


# Set whether to automatically execute "clean" after "install" of ports
portautoclean           no

# Create and use binary archive packages for installation/ 
reinstallation ease
portarchivemode         yes

--anders